RBA leaves the cash rate unchanged at 2.0 per cent

At its meeting today, the Board decided to leave the cash rate unchanged at 2.0 per cent.

The global economy is expanding at a moderate pace, but some key commodity prices are much lower than a year ago. This trend appears largely to reflect increased supply, including from Australia. Australia’s terms of trade are falling nonetheless.

The Federal Reserve is expected to start increasing its policy rate later this year, but some other major central banks are continuing to ease policy. Hence, global financial conditions remain very accommodative. Despite fluctuations in markets associated with the respective developments in China and Greece, long-term borrowing rates for most sovereigns and creditworthy private borrowers remain remarkably low.

In Australia, the available information suggests that the economy has continued to grow over the past year, but at a rate somewhat below its longer-term average. The rate of unemployment, though elevated, has been little changed recently. Overall, the economy is likely to be operating with a degree of spare capacity for some time yet. With very slow growth in labour costs, inflation is forecast to remain consistent with the target over the next one to two years, even with a lower exchange rate.

In such circumstances, monetary policy needs to be accommodative. Low interest rates are acting to support borrowing and spending. Credit is recording moderate growth overall, with stronger borrowing by businesses and growth in lending to the housing market broadly steady over recent months. Dwelling prices continue to rise strongly in Sydney, though trends have been more varied in a number of other cities. The Bank is working with other regulators to assess and contain risks that may arise from the housing market. In other asset markets, prices for equities and commercial property have been supported by lower long-term interest rates.

The Australian dollar has declined noticeably against a rising US dollar over the past year, though less so against a basket of currencies. Further depreciation seems both likely and necessary, particularly given the significant declines in key commodity prices.

The Board today judged that leaving the cash rate unchanged was appropriate at this meeting. Information on economic and financial conditions to be received over the period ahead will inform the Board’s assessment of the outlook and hence whether the current stance of policy will most effectively foster sustainable growth and inflation consistent with the target.

CGU Insurance and Accident and Health International to refund $2 million in ‘useless’ payday insurance premiums

Following concerns raised by ASIC, CGU Insurance Limited (CGU), together with Accident and Health International Underwriting Pty Ltd (AHI) have agreed to refund consumers over $2,000,000 in payday loan consumer credit insurance (CCI) premiums and fees. The insurance was sold by The Cash Store Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (The Cash Store) alongside payday loans to consumers.

The agreement follows earlier court action by ASIC against The Cash Store, in which the Federal Court found that The Cash Store had acted unconscionably in selling a payday loan CCI product (CCI product). The CCI product covered consumers against the risk of becoming unemployed, sick or dying during the period of the payday loans, which could be as short as one day, and was usually around two weeks.

ASIC’s court action against The Cash Store was in respect of its conduct between August 2010 and March 2012. In this period:

  • The Cash Store sold the CCI product to 182,838 customers
  • these customers paid $2,278,404 in premiums for cover
  • only 43 claims were paid to consumers, totaling only $25,118.

‘ASIC took action because we were concerned about the unfair sale of the payday insurance when it was highly unlikely that consumers would be able to make a claim. We therefore welcome CGU and AHI’s agreement to refund more than $2 million to these consumers,’ ASIC Deputy Chair Peter Kell said.

To address ASIC’s concerns and minimise the risk of this type of conduct occurring again, CGU and AHI have agreed to:

  • refund total amounts paid by consumers, together with interest, for all sales of the CCI product for which CGU was on risk for the product (including sales in 2013 when a modified version of the policy was reintroduced)
  • review claims it denied where the consumer did not meet the eligibility requirements for a claim at the point of sale under both the initial and modified versions of the policy
  • appoint an independent external firm to review its supervision of third parties
  • appoint an independent external firm to review AHI, a wholly owned subsidiary of CGU, who was responsible for underwriting the payday loan insurance product.

ASIC’s inquiries into the sale of the CCI product by The Cash Store and the role of other entities is ongoing.

Background

The Federal Court imposed the maximum penalty of $1.1 million on The Cash Store for engaging in unconscionable conduct in breach of section 12CB of the ASIC Act. The total penalty on The Cash Store and the loan funder, Assistive Finance Australia Pty Ltd (AFA) was $18.975 million, which included penalties for systemic breaches of the responsible lending requirements under the National Credit Act.

The Federal Court action related to the conduct of The Cash Store during the period from August 2010 to March 2012 when it sold the CCI product in connection with 182,838 of the total 268,903 credit contracts entered into in this period (or 68% of these contracts). The CCI product was developed and distributed by a number of entities, including AHI via an underwriting agency agreement with Allianz (up until March 2011), and later through an underwriting agency agreement with CGU (from March 2011).

CGU was the insurer for the CCI productfor two periods; between 1 March 2011 and 31 March 2012 and 1 April 2013 and 31 October 2013. AHI temporarily stopped issuing the CCI product between April 2012 and April 2013. While off the market, AHI modified some of the terms on which cover was offered and subsequently recommenced sales of the modified CCI product through The Cash Store from April 2013 until October 2013. ASIC was concerned that the modified CCI product, despite some improvements, continued to offer very limited benefit overall.

On 3 March 2015, ASIC announced that Allianz had agreed to refund approximately $400,000 in CCI product premiums. The total amount of refunds agreed to by Allianz, CGU and AHI is just under $2.5 million, covering all sales of the CCI product.

The Cash Store generally charged its customers a premium of about 3.38% of the loan amount for the CCI product. From August 2010 to October 2013, consumers paid approximately $2.5 million for the CCI product, with The Cash Store retaining approximately $1.34 million as income.

The court also found that The Cash Store and AFA each breached seven separate provisions of the National Credit Act on multiple occasions. On 19 February 2015 the Federal Court imposed record penalties of $18.975 million against The Cash Store and AFA.

Implementing Foreign Investment Reforms – The Treasury

The Treasury released the exposure draft of legislation designed to tighten foreign investment rules, including those relating to residential real estate. This follows on from the announcement on 2 May 2015, when the Government announced a package of reforms to strengthen the foreign investment framework, including:

  • stronger enforcement of the foreign investment rules by transferring all of the residential real estate functions to the Australian Taxation Office;
  • stricter penalties that will make it easier to pursue court action and ensure that foreign investors are not able to profit from breaking the rules;
  • application fees to improve service delivery and ensure that Australian taxpayers no longer have to fund the cost of administering the system;
  • increased scrutiny around foreign investment in agriculture;
  • increased transparency on the levels of foreign ownership in Australia through a land register; and
  • a more modern and simpler foreign investment framework.

These reforms will be given effect by the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, the Register of Foreign Ownership of Agricultural Land Bill 2015 and the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Bill 2015.

The Government is now seeking input from stakeholders on the two substantive Bills (the Fees Imposition Bill is a standard tax imposition Bill) and their explanatory materials.

The Government has also released draft Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Regulations 2015 so that stakeholders understand how the new legislative framework will operate (the Regulations contain key provisions such as the definition of agribusiness, definitions and rules around foreign government investors and the specific rules for free trade agreement partner countries).

Closing date for submissions is Friday, 17 July 2015.

Greece votes No: experts respond

From The Conversation:

The Greek people have voted, saying a resounding No to the terms of the bailout deal offered by their international creditors. What will this mean for Greece, the euro and the future of the EU? Our experts explain what happens next.

Costas Milas, Professor of Finance, University of Liverpool

Greek voters have confirmed their support for their prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, who now has the extremely challenging task of renegotiating a “better” deal for his country.

Nevertheless, time is very short. Greece’s economic situation is critical. On July 2, Greek banks reportedly had only €500m in cash reserves. This buffer is not even 0.5% of the €120 billion deposits that Greek citizens have to their names. It is only capital controls preventing Greek banks from collapsing under the strain of withdrawal.

Basic mathematical calculations reveal how desperate the situation is. There are roughly 9.9m registered Greek voters. Assume that – irrespective of whether they voted Yes or No – some 2.8m voters (that is, a very modest 28.2% of the total number of registered voters) decide to withdraw their daily limit of €60 from cash machines on Monday morning. Following this pattern, banks will run out of cash in three days and therefore collapse (note: 3 x 2.8m x 60 ≈ 500m).

There is therefore very little time for the Greek government to strike the deal with their creditors that will instantaneously give the ECB the “green light” to inject additional Emergency Liquidity Assistance (ELA) to Greek banks to support their cash buffer and save them from collapse. In other words, Greece does not have the luxury of playing “hard ball” with its creditors. An agreement has to be imminent.

Financial markets, expected to start very nervously on Monday morning, will probably stay relatively calm as the reality of the economic situation spelled out above is more likely than not to lead to some sort of agreement (provided, of course, that Greece’s creditors will listen to Tsipras). Whether this agreement is good for the Greeks, this is an entirely different story.

Richard Holden, Professor of economics, UNSW Australia

By calling this referendum and shutting off negotiations for nearly a week, the Syriza party has brought the Greek banking system very close to insolvency. Greece can’t print euros so Greek banks will soon need to issue IOUs, or the demand for money will not be met, leading to utter chaos. Who will accept these? How will they be valued? These are big, scary questions to which nobody knows the answer.

By voting No, Greece has tied the hands of European Central Bank president Mario Draghi. As a matter of politics there’s not much he can do in the short-term and with Greek banks insolvent he may not be able to do anything simply as a matter of law.

At least one if not all the major Greek banks are likely to fail early this week. When this happens, the Greek economy will essentially come to a halt. Nobody knows what will happen, but it surely won’t be good.

The other depressing consequence of the No vote is that Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis’s promise to resign if his fellow citizens voted Yes will not come about. It has been abundantly clear that Syriza representatives have been miles out of their depth from the time they took office.

Everyone with real knowledge and experience of financial markets and liquidity crises told them to stop playing chicken with the IMF and ECB. They should start listening immediately.

George Kyris, Lecturer in International and European Politics, University of Birmingham

A historic referendum for Greece and Europe tells a very interesting story. While results indicate that a sizeable 61% rejected existing policies towards the Greek crisis, polls have consistently shown that the majority of Greeks want to remain in the eurozone. This exposes the success of Syriza based on its populism, which has allowed Greeks to think that they can stay a credible member of the EU, while at the same time taking unilateral decisions and refusing to recognise the obligations of their eurozone membership.

This not only creates unrealistic expectations but it is also a very sad result for the relationship between the EU and its citizens, which, once again, falls victim to national governments’ short-term strategies. In this climate of unrealistic expectations, the Greek government embarks on a mission impossible to secure a better deal for the country, where economic, political and social peace has been seriously undermined in the past few months and week especially.

The first reactions of Greece’s EU partners to the No vote are far from positive.

In his address after the referendum, Alexis Tsipras indicated the formation of an ad hoc national council with the participation of major political parties to prepare the negotiation strategy. The next few days will show if a more united Greek front is possible and capable of improving things for the crisis-hit country.

Ross Buckley, Professor, Faculty of Law at UNSW Australia

The Greek people have decisively voted No to more austerity imposed from Frankfurt. This is unsurprising. Voters rarely vote for higher taxes and lower pensions. However other polls reveal clearly that the Greek people overwhelmingly also want to retain the Euro. So this is one giant gamble. The Greeks are betting that the potential damage to other countries, especially Spain and Italy, and thus to the very fabric of the Euro, is simply too great for the Eurozone to eject Greece.

When voting on Sunday most Greeks probably felt they were reclaiming control of their own economy. However, paradoxically, the No vote has done the opposite. Greece’s short to medium term economic future is now in the hands of others, particularly Germany and France.

Greek banks today are all but out of Euros. Normally in this situation a nation’s central bank simply prints more currency. Greece can’t do that, as no one country controls production of the Euro. So the options over the next month or so seem to be that either Germany, France and the European Central Bank blink, and extend more credit to Greece, or Greece’s financial system will cease functioning and ultimately it will be forced to print drachma.

Remy Davison, Jean Monnet Chair in Politics and Economics at Monash University

With eyes wide shut, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras has sent his country to the wall.

The “OXI” voters in Athens last night were in full party mode. But in the cold, harsh light of day, the depressingly-painful hangover begins.

61% of voters will wish they didn’t drink so much of the OXI Kool-Aid. Especially when the realisation hits voters that they can only get €60 out of the ATM. Or €50, as €20 notes are now scarce.

The next hurdle for Athens is ominous. The government has a $3.5 billion repayment due to the ECB in mid-July. Defaulting on the 30 June IMF payment was not as serious as the media made out; the IMF default process is slow and ponderous. Conversely, the ECB controls Greece’s capital lifelines. Its emergency lending assistance (ELA) facility has kept Greek banks liquid up to this point. However, the ECB’s Governing Council and the Eurogroup ministers are unlikely to be sympathetic if Tsipras and Varoufakis attempt to renege on the ECB debt repayments.

A deal will ultimately be struck or Greek banks will not reopen without assistance from the ECB. Europe’s central bank will not refinance Greek banks endlessly, as the absence of capital controls before they were imposed on 29 June saw billions of euro offshored within days.

Tax evasion remains a systemic problem for Greece. A Swiss media source has reported that Athens is quietly offering amnesty from prosecution to Greek tax evaders, who have squirrelled away their euro in Swiss bank accounts, if they pay 21% tax.

A Grexit is still extremely unlikely. If there is one thing that government and opposition parties agree upon, it is that there will be no attempt to depart the eurozone. It is not in Greece’s interest, and there is no legal mechanism with which to do so.

An extra-legal attempt (i.e., outside the EU treaties) by a qualified or absolute majority of EU member governments to vote for Greece’s ejection from the eurozone would result in a Greek application to the European Court of Justice for an injunction. A hearing by the ECJ on an attempt to remove Greece from the eurozone could potentially take two years or more, given the complete absence of precedent and the considerable time and resources required to compile briefs for a case of such complexity. Financial commentators who believe in a high probability of a Grexit are either deluded, or have little comprehension of how the institutional mechanisms and procedures of the EU actually work.

The tragedy is that Tsipras and Varoufakis did not need initiate this crisis, as Greece and the IMF were only $400 million apart in their negotiations before the Greek government walked out. Tspiras and Varoufakis have spun the recent IMF report, which calls for debt restructuring, as somehow supporting their side of the story.

In reality, the IMF has been heavily critical of the Tsipras-Varoufakis government and its unwillingness to undertake the requisite, difficult structural reforms that Greece needs, including further privatisation, industry deregulation and competition policy reform, rigorous taxation restructuring in the Greek merchant shipping industry, and tackling offshore tax evasion. Why a far-left government in Greece wants to help rich Greeks to avoid tax defies logic.

In June, a reasonable compromise may have been reached between Athens and the Eurogroup. But it’s unlikely Euro Area ministers will have much sympathy to spare in the next round of negotiations.

Greeks may have voted with an overwhelming “OXI”, but it’s unlikely they realised they might also be voting for capital controls, insolvent banks and a financial system on the verge of meltdown.

Nikos Papastergiadis, School of Culture and Communication, University of Melbourne

A profound recognition has been given now, not just by economists, but by the people of Greece, that the economic policies pushed by the troika are counter-productive.

The government can now walk into negotiations in a strengthened position. They can honour their promises. They have no intention to leave the eurozone, let alone the EU, but can focus on a debt restructure, tackling tax evasion and modernising the state.

I expect some sort of financial resolution in the next 24-48 hours, because a move back to the drachma would be catastrophic.

When politicians in Europe say things like ‘It’s not a problem for us there is no risk of economic contagion,’ that is a profoundly immoral comment given there’s a real risk Europeans will die this winter as a result of their policies. Their sense of solidarity with the union is profoundly blinkered. The risk is not just economic contagion, it’s political contagion. They don’t want Syriza to be the example for other European governments. They wanted Greece to be humbled and crippled by these austerity measures. This divide and conquer attitude means there will be long-term political consequences.

I am so proud of the courage demonstrated by Greeks who have stood up in the face of their own oligarchs, who launched a smear campaign against the government, and said ‘enough is enough’.

James Arvanitakis, Professor in Cultural and Social Analysis at University of Western Sydney

The Greek people have shown overwhelming support for the Greek government and their stance against the so-called troika.

While most commentators may claim they suspected the outcome, I think those who are honest would say the decision was too close to call. The 61% vote in favour of the government does not indicate this, but the reality is the vast majority of Greeks did not know themselves what their vote would be.

In the end, the existential crisis of potentially leaving the Euro and even the European Union was usurped by the fact that they have had enough: enough of austerity that has driven the economy into the ground, enough of 25% unemployment and a lost generation of productivity with 50% youth unemployment, and enough of the troika and the bankers holding them to ransom. As one academic said to me when I was recently there:

“Who created the crisis and who pays for it? Like the GFC, it was those that lent the money, those that fudged the figures and those who have moved their money into offshore accounts. We lose our houses, they sip Retsina and watch sunsets on the islands.”

So what is next for the Greek people?

The obvious answer is uncertainty. But the uncertainty and potential for financial meltdown seems to have usurped the absolute hopelessness that is associated with ‘more of the same’.

Over the last five years we have seen the Greek government meet most of the austerity requests put forward by the troika. Economic theory tells us that in the “long run”, the austerity would work. For the Greek population however, the long run is too far away, unrealistic and a party trick they are no longer willing to fall for.

Greeks have said enough. They have decided it is better to reboot the economy and suffer the potential consequences than continue to see deeply flawed measures bring nothing but financial misery.

Over the next few days we will see continued celebrations. These will quickly disappear depending on the outcome of the negotiations. As I have written elsewhere, Greek society is fraying, how the negotiations go including a potential “Grexit” would determine just how far this unravelling goes.

The heartbreaking image of an elderly man, 77-year-old retiree Giorgos Chatzifotiadis, collapsed on the ground openly crying in despair outside a Greek bank, captured the attention of the world. It is a manifestation of what happens when economic policy and ideology is separated from the impacts on real people.

The “No” vote will restore the pride that has evaporated. But whether this pride turns into something productive or something that is a chauvinistic nationalism, no-one knows.

Many Challenges If Resolution Needed On Greek Banks – Fitch

The four largest Greek banks have failed and would also have defaulted had capital controls not been imposed at the outset of the week, due to deposit withdrawals and the ECB’s decision not to raise the Bank of Greece’s (BG) Emergency Liquidity Assistance (ELA) ceiling, says Fitch Ratings.

The Greek banking system’s liquidity and solvency positions are very weak and some banks may be nearing a point where resolution becomes a real possibility. The ECB is responsible for supervising and authorising the four major Greek banks, and the BG is resolution authority for the others.

Resolution of Greek banks, if required, is unlikely to be straightforward. We believe it would be politically unacceptable to impose losses on Greek creditors and that efforts would be made to find a solution which avoids this but still complies with EU legislation. Existing bank resolution laws in Greece are relatively mature, sharing many similarities with the EU’s Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive, although they exclude explicit bail-in of senior unsecured creditors.

In April, Panellinia Bank was liquidated under this framework, with selected assets and liabilities sold to Piraeus Bank. Panellinia’s small size may have facilitated speedy resolution. Potential resolution of any more systemically important banks would be far more complex.

Recapitalisation of Greek banks using domestic resources would be impossible due to the sovereign’s weak financial condition. The remaining EUR10.9bn European Financial Stability Facility notes available to cover potential bank recapitalisation or resolution in Greece were cancelled by the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) when Greece’s bailout programme expired on 30 June.

The Greek deposit insurance fund, which could be used to recapitalise banks contained only around EUR3bn at end-2013. No pan-EU deposit insurance fund yet exists but under the recast Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive, EU banks can access other countries’ deposit insurance funds. Other EU member states would be highly unlikely to agree to share due to a lack of confidence in Greece and its banking system.

The ESM could still inject funds directly into the banks, but a precondition would be the bail-in of 8% of liabilities and own funds. This would most likely wipe out much or all equity in a failed bank. The equity/assets ratios of the four largest Greek banks were 8%-10% at end-1Q15, but losses incurred since are likely to have reduced this figure. Greek banks have issued limited debt, so ESM rules would theoretically make uninsured deposits vulnerable to bail-in if a bank were to suffer material erosion of own funds before any resolution action.

But any bail-in of uninsured deposits would be politically unacceptable for a Greek government and would also be unlikely to be palatable for Greece’s international creditors, as they overwhelmingly relate to “real economy” SMEs and retail customers. An alternative, more creative, solution would therefore probably be needed to resolve and/or recapitalise Greek banks. This would depend on political goodwill and the outcome of negotiations with creditors, which are still highly uncertain.

The liquidity position of Greek banks is much deteriorated without access to incremental ELA. The ECB only extends ELA to solvent banks and against acceptable collateral. The credit quality of Greek banks’ domestic loan books is exceptionally weak. We calculate that for the country’s four largest banks an aggregated total regulatory capital erosion equivalent to around 4.8% of risk-weighted assets (5% of domestic gross loans) would probably render them non-compliant with the EU minimum total capital requirement of 8%, assuming static risk-weighted assets.

At end-March, these banks reported 90-days-past-due loans equivalent to around 36% of total domestic loans, and arrears may since have risen significantly.

A swift lifting of capital controls is highly unlikely even if there is successful resumption of negotiations with the ECB, IMF and European Commission. Controls on Cypriot banks, lifted in May, lasted two years.

The Grattan Institute On Negative Gearing

Last weekend the Property Council and the Real Estate Institute of Australia released a consultants’ report that tried to show renters would pay much more if generous tax concessions to landlords were wound back. So interesting to read an article by John Daley and Danielle Wood published by The Australian, Friday 3 July, and posted on the Institute website entitled “Rent rise fears are overstated”

With increasing public scrutiny of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount at a time of rising budget pressures, the industry’s response was textbook: release an “independent” economic report alluding to frightening economic impacts and wait for an unquestioning media to breathlessly report them. As spooked tenants were rolled out lamenting hypothetical rent rises of $10,000 a year, no doubt the big developers congratulated themselves on a job well done.

But these misleading claims shouldn’t go untested. The report does not support the headline-grabbing $10,000-a-year rent rises. Rather, it suggests the immediate removal of negative gearing is likely to result in a portion of the average $9500 net rental loss being added to rental prices — without any attempt to define how large that impact may be.

The report’s use of the $9500 figure is highly misleading. This amount is the average loss deducted from tax for people with negatively geared investment properties. The report assumes these landlords will try to pass on some fraction of their higher tax costs by pushing up rents. But will they succeed? Many other landlords with investment properties that are profitable and therefore don’t qualify for negative gearing won’t be paying higher taxes. Tenants will try to beat rent rises by threatening to move. So competition in rental markets will limit material rent rises.

In any case, current rents are ultimately a consequence of the balance between demand and supply for rental housing. In property markets — as in other markets — returns determine asset prices, not the other way around. Rents don’t increase just to ensure that buyers of assets get their money back.

Some investors may sell their properties if tax concessions are less generous. This may reduce house prices, but it will not increase rents. Every time an investor sells a property, a current renter buys it, so there is one less rental property and one less renter, and no change to the balance between supply and demand of rental properties.

Claims that removing negative gearing will push up rents often rest on a folk memory of increasing rents in Sydney between 1985 and 1987. But as proper examination of that history shows, real rents didn’t increase in Melbourne, Brisbane and Adelaide. Other factors drove the Sydney rent rise.

The industry report argues negative gearing boosts the supply of new rental properties. But 93 per cent of all investment property lending is for existing dwellings. As the report itself points out, the main constraint on the supply of new housing is land release and zoning restrictions, not the profitability of developments. Providing tax concessions in this supply-constrained environment mainly just bids up prices for the limited new supply.

The other argument the industry advances is that “ordinary Australians” use negative gearing. Once again the numbers it uses are highly misleading. Its report shows that those with taxable incomes under $80,000 claim most tax benefits from negative gearing for property — 58 per cent of the rental losses. But people who are negatively gearing have lower taxable incomes because they are negatively gearing. Correcting for this by assessing income before rental loss deductions shows that less than one-third of rental losses are claimed by people with incomes below $80,000.

In other words, taxpayers with incomes more than $80,000 — the top 20 per cent of income earners — claim almost 70 per cent of the tax benefits of negative gearing. For capital gains, taxpayers with incomes of more than $80,000 capture 75 per cent of the gains. If we are trying to look after middle-income earners, then general changes to income tax rates would be fairer than allowing negative gearing for a small proportion of middle-income earners.

So why are the Property Council and the Real Estate Institute making such claims? Presumably because reforms would reduce the price of assets held by their members. They have a strong incentive to obscure how these tax benefits impose costs on other taxpayers, push home ownership further out of reach for young people and distort investment decisions.

Australia is one of few developed nations to allow full deductibility of losses against wage income. As other countries realise, negative gearing distorts investment decisions by allowing investors to write off losses at their marginal tax rate but pay tax on their capital gains at only half this rate. Investors who hold off selling until they are retired pay even less tax on their capital gains. As a result, investors favour assets that pay more in the way of capital gains and less in terms of steady income. It also makes debt financing of investment more attractive. It all leads to the leveraged and speculative investment of the Sydney property boom.

As well as restricting the deduction of investment losses against wage and salary income, the capital gains tax discount should also be reduced. The industry report argues capital gains should receive a discounted tax treatment to ensure the inflation component of gains is not taxed. But with inflation rates low relative to investment returns, the 50 per cent discount overcompensates most investors. The discount magnifies the tax advantages of capital gains over other investment income.

Yet despite the compelling arguments for change, it seems the industry’s aggressive lobbying efforts will be rewarded. The Treasurer and the Finance Minister have both defended negative gearing arrangements by warning, against all credible evidence, that change would bring higher rents. The message to lobby groups is clear: if you pay enough to “independent” consultants you may be able to buy favourable policy outcomes, irrespective of the costs to the community.

Retail turnover rose 0.3 per cent in May 2015

The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Retail Trade figures show that Australian retail turnover rose 0.3 per cent in May following a fall of -0.1 per cent in April 2015, seasonally adjusted.

In monthly terms, the trend estimate for Australian retail turnover rose 0.2 per cent in May 2015 following a 0.3 per cent rise in April 2015. In year-on-year terms, the trend estimate rose 4.4 per cent.

In seasonally adjusted terms there were rises in food retailing (0.7 per cent), household goods retailing (0.9 per cent) and other retailing (0.3 per cent). There were falls in department stores (-1.4 per cent), clothing, footwear and personal accessory retailing (-0.8 per cent) and cafes, restaurants and takeaway food services (-0.2 per cent).

In seasonally adjusted terms there were rises in New South Wales (0.7 per cent), Queensland (0.2 per cent), Western Australia (0.2 per cent), the Australian Capital Territory (0.9 per cent) and Tasmania (0.6 per cent). South Australia (0.0 per cent) and the Northern Territory (0.0 per cent) were relatively unchanged. There was a fall in Victoria (-0.1 per cent).

Online retail turnover contributed 3.1 per cent to total retail turnover in original terms.

Peer-To-Peer Lending, The US Experience

DFA has been tracking the progress of Peer-to-Peer lending, and it continues to grow fast round the world. Here is a summary from the Lending Mag covering the best U.S. Peer-to-Peer Lending Sites for Borrowers. It is quite interesting comparing the different business models, charging structures and sheer scale of lending through this channel. In the US, at least, it is becoming a valid alternative funding source.

#1 Prosper Marketplace

peer to peer lending sites reviewProsper Marketplace is The Lending Mag’s first choice among U.S. peer-to-peer lending companies for borrowers. This popular p2p lending platform made history in the United States when they became the first peer-to-peer lending site in the country in 2006. Since that time, Prosper has experienced tremendous growth and success, having recently surpassed $3 billion in loans. Recently, they were named by Forbes as one of the most promising companies in America.

Prosper places as number #1 on our list of p2p lenders because of the accessibility and attention to customers that they provide. Out of all the p2p lenders we have had interactions with, Prosper representatives were the most accommodating and reachable. You don’t feel like you are dealing with a cold, unreachable entity. You can sense the humanity behind the big name and they are there to help you. Here are more details about Prosper’s peer-to-peer lending site:

  • Maximum Loan Amount Available: $35,000
  • Minimum Loan Amount Available: $2,000
  • Average Time to Receive Funds (in days): 4 to 10 days
  • APR: 6.73% to 35.97%
  • Interest Rate: 6.05% to 31.90%
  • Term of Loan (years): 3 or 5
  • Minimum Credit Score Required: 640
  • Maximum Debt-to-Income Ratio: 30%
  • Loan Type (Secured or Unsecured): Unsecured loan
  • Application Affect On Your Credit: None
  • States Eligible To Borrow From p2p Lending Sites In Question: 47 + DC
  • Origination Fee: 1% to 5%
  • Late Fee: Greater of $15 or 5%
  • Unsuccessful Payment Fee: None
  • Check Processing: $15
  • Application Fee Charge: None
  • Prepayment Penalty Cost: None
  • Best Method of Contacting Their Support: Phone

#2 Lending Club

p2p lending sitesLending Club is an absolute giant in the US peer-to-peer lending space. You really can’t talk about U.S. peer-to-peer lending without mentioning them. Their peer loans platform was founded shortly after Prosper in 2007, they’ve actually surpassed Prosper in the amount of loans funded. Many p2p loan investors feel that Lending Club’s website has the best user interface and it definitely has the largest and most impressive 3rd-party investor ecosystem.

In December of 2014 Lending Club had a wildly successful IPO on the NYSE, becoming the first publicly traded online peer-to-peer lender in US history. If this p2p lending site review was focused on investing, Lending Club would probably have been ranked #1. But getting approved to borrow through Lending Club can be a bit more difficult than with Prosper, knocking them to number #2 on our list from a borrower’s perspective. Here are more details about Lending Club’s peer-to-peer lending site:

  • Maximum Loan Amount Available: $35,000 ($300,000 for business loans)
  • Minimum Loan Amount Available: $1,000 ($15,000 for business loans)
  • Average Time to Receive Funds (in days): 4 to 10 days
  • APR: 5.99% to 32.99%
  • Interest Rate: 5.9% to 25.9%
  • Term of Loan (years): 1, 3 or 5
  • Minimum Credit Score Required: 660
  • Maximum Debt-to-Income Ratio: 35%
  • Loan Type (Secured or Unsecured): Unsecured loan
  • Application Affect On Your Credit: None
  • States Eligible To Borrow From p2p Lending Sites In Question:
  • Origination Fee: 0.99% to 5.99%
  • Late Fee: Greater of $15 or 5%
  • Unsuccessful Payment Fee: $15
  • Check Processing: $15
  • Application Fee Charge: None
  • Prepayment Penalty Cost: None
  • Best Method of Contacting Their Support: Phone

#3 Upstart

If you’ve recently graduated from college, you probably don’t need us to tell you how hard it is to convince a bank to give you a loan. Young people fresh out of college don’t usually have the type of income needed, enough credit history or a high enough credit score to get a reasonable loan rate, if you can get a loan at all.

This is where Upstart steps in. This innovative lending site began facilitating p2p loans in April 2014. They aim to help those who are under-served by traditional loan companies but are filled with potential. Instead of only judging creditworthiness from your credit score, employment history and income, Upstart looks at a wide range of nontraditional factors in order to determine whether you should get a shot at getting your loan funded. These other factors include which college you graduated from, your grade point average and it’s possible that they even take your SAT scores into account.peer to peer lending sites upstart

Upstart prides itself on looking past the cold numbers and saying yes to your requests when other lenders say no. Most of Upstart’s borrowers use the funds as debt consolidation loans in order to pay off high-interest credit cards, but you can use the funds as you please.

This fast-growing p2p lending site is becoming popular among Millennials especially because they are often in a situation where they don’t have a long track record of credit history and are often offered very high loan rates because of it. Taking a bad loan at an early age can easily set your financial life on the wrong road and Upstart realizes that such poor options are not necessary or fair.

Company officials have expressed that the company’s loan products are meant to serve a young and potential-laden population that is very likely to build a solid credit profile in the future, but just hasn’t had the opportunity to do so yet. By using their sophisticated algorithm to decipher key data, the peer-to-peer lending site is able approve the extension of consumer credit at affordable rates to young borrowers who are well-positioned to handle the loans responsibly.
Here are more details about Upstart’s peer-to-peer lending site:

  • Maximum Loan Amount Available: $35,000
  • Minimum Loan Amount Available: $3,000
  • Average Time to Receive Funds (in days): 2 to 16
  • APR: 5.67% to 29.99%
  • Interest Rate: 5% to 25.26%
  • Term of Loan (years): 3
  • Minimum Credit Score Required: 640
  • Maximum Debt-to-Income Ratio: 40% to 50%
  • Loan Type (Secured or Unsecured): Unsecured loan
  • Application Affect On Your Credit: None
  • States Eligible To Borrow From p2p Lending Sites In Question: 50
  • Origination Fee: 1% to 6%
  • Late Fee: Greater of $15 or 5%
  • Unsuccessful Payment Fee: $15
  • Check Processing: $15
  • Application Fee Charge: None
  • Prepayment Penalty Cost: None
  • Best Method of Contacting Their Support: Phone

#4 Funding Circle

p2p lending sites funding circleFunding Circle is one of the world’s biggest peer-to-peer lending sites that actually focuses primarily on small business loans. They have a US counterpart to their peer to peer lending UK branch. They’ve facilitated more than $1 billion in loans to more than 8,000 businesses in the US and UK combined. Today, 40,000 retail investors (normal people), major banks, financial institutions and even the UK Government are lending to small businesses through the Funding Circle marketplace.

Funding Circle is intensely focused on helping small businesses get loans through their p2p lending site because they have roots in small business. Their U.S. co-founders started the peer-to-peer lending site because they were small business owners themselves, they were getting rejected for small business funding at every turn and after getting rejected for small business loans nearly 100 times, they realized something was very wrong with the traditional bank lending system, it was internally flawed. They saw first hand that even when you have a growing and successful business venture that’s doing well, it’s still far too difficult to get a business loan. From that point forward, they were more determined than ever to build a more sensible small business loan solution for American business owners.

Here are more details about Funding Circle’s peer-to-peer lending site:

  • Maximum Loan Amount Available: $500,000 for business loans
  • Minimum Loan Amount Available: $25,000 for business loans
  • Average Time to Receive Funds (in days): 5 to 14
  • APR:
  • Interest Rate: 5.99% to 20.99%
  • Term of Loan (years): 1 to 5
  • Minimum Credit Score Required: 620
  • Maximum Debt-to-Income Ratio: Not Disclosed
  • Loan Type (Secured or Unsecured): Secured loan
  • Application Affect On Your Credit: Hard pull on your credit
  • States Eligible To Borrow From p2p Lending Sites In Question: 47 + DC
  • Origination Fee: 2.99%
  • Late Fee: 10%
  • Unsuccessful Payment Fee: $35
  • Check Processing: $0
  • Application Fee Charge: None
  • Prepayment Penalty Cost: None
  • Best Method of Contacting Their Support: Phone

#5 Peerform

peerform p2p Lending Sites reviewPeerform was started by Wall Street executives with extensive backgrounds in Finance and Technology in 2010, the peer-to-peer lending site’s creators saw an opportunity to make funding available to borrowers when they noticed that banks seemed unwilling to lend to people and small businesses in need.

Peerform has built a good track record of giving borrowers an opportunity that the banking system had denied them and a very positive experience when seeking unsecured personal loans through an online lending process that is transparent, fast and easy to understand.

To apply for an online peer-to-peer loan from Peerform, you fill out the application on their site and they will make a soft pull on your credit to see if you meet the minimum requirements for a loan. They are one of the few major peer-to-peer lending sites that accepts borrowers with FICO scores as low as 600. Those who qualify for a loan have their loan request posted on the website and it stays active for 14 days while peer-to-peer investors decide if the loan is an attractive investment or not. If your loan is fully funded within the 2 week time period, you’ll be contacted by Peerform to approve and accept the loan. If your loan is not fully funded in the 2 week time period but has raised at least $1,000, you may choose to accept or reject the lesser amount. It is completely your call, you are not obligated to accept the loan. If you do choose to accept the loan, it will be deposited to your bank account within a few business days.

When we tested their customer service and contacted Peerform, we had positive experiences both via email and on the phone. After sending an email we received a written response within 24 hours, and most of our questions were answered to satisfaction. When talking to them by phone, we noted that the company rep was very knowledgeable about the loan process and able to give helpful answers. Their site also provides all of the most important information you’d need to know about their peer-to-peer loan process, including APRs, interest rates, potential loan amounts and fees, etc. You can also contact a customer rep using the live chat option they have on the website. Here are more details about Peerform’s peer-to-peer lending site:

  • Maximum Loan Amount Available: $25,000
  • Minimum Loan Amount Available: $1,000
  • Average Time to Receive Funds (in days): 2 to 16
  • APR: 7.12% to 28.09%
  • Interest Rate: 6.4% to 25%
  • Term of Loan (years): 3
  • Minimum Credit Score Required: 600
  • Maximum Debt-to-Income Ratio: Varies
  • Loan Type (Secured or Unsecured): Unsecured loan
  • Application Affect On Your Credit: None
  • States Eligible To Borrow From p2p Lending Sites In Question: 23
  • Origination Fee: 1% to 5%
  • Late Fee: Greater of $15 or 5%
  • Unsuccessful Payment Fee: $15
  • Check Processing: $15
  • Application Fee Charge: None
  • Prepayment Penalty Cost: None
  • Best Method of Contacting Their Support: Phone

#6 Sofi

peer to peer lending sofiSofi is a highly respected marketplace lending website, with nearly $3 billion in peer loans issued to this date.

They made it onto this peer-to-peer lending sites review because they do a good job at assisting early stage professionals accelerate their success with student loan refinancing, mortgage refinancing, mortgages and unsecured personal loans.

Their nontraditional loan underwriting approach takes into account merit and employment history among other determining factors, in effect, allowing their peer-to-peer lending site to offer loans that often are hard to find elsewhere.

Here are more details about Sofi’s peer-to-peer lending site:

  • Maximum Loan Amount Available: $100,000
  • Minimum Loan Amount Available: $5,000
  • Average Time to Receive Funds (in days): 3
  • APR: 5.5% to 8.99%
  • Interest Rate:
  • Term of Loan (years): 3, 5 or 7
  • Minimum Credit Score Required: Varies
  • Maximum Debt-to-Income Ratio: Varies
  • Loan Type (Secured or Unsecured): Secured loan
  • Application Affect On Your Credit: None
  • States Eligible To Borrow From p2p Lending Sites In Question:
  • Origination Fee: None
  • Late Fee: Lesser of 4% or $5
  • Unsuccessful Payment Fee: $15
  • Check Processing: $15
  • Application Fee Charge: None
  • Prepayment Penalty Cost: None
  • Best Method of Contacting Their Support: Phone

How a ‘Grexit’ Could Strengthen the Eurozone

Interesting perspective on the Greece situation from Knowledge@Wharton.

The debt crisis in Greece is quickly turning into a Greek tragedy. Banks have closed for a time, ATMs have cash limits and the stock market has not opened. Greece’s bailout expires on June 30, the same day its $1.8 billion debt payment is due to the International Monetary Fund. Greece reportedly will not pay it. Prime Minister Alex Tsipras has called for a July 5 referendum on the latest bailout terms by the IMF, the European Central Bank and the European Commission.

While the situation is dire for the Greeks, Wharton finance professor Jeremy Siegel says the crisis will likely be contained because of freer lending to banks in other countries. And if Greece does exit the European Union, he believes it will strengthen the eurozone. Siegel points to the euro gaining ground even as news of Greek bank closings led to expected declines in the European capital markets — which were to a lesser extent reflected in the U.S. markets as a result of a flight to quality.

As for the impact of the crisis on the Fed’s intention to raise the federal funds rate later this year, Siegel says the U.S. central bank will take the situation in Greece into account if it continues to be a problem months from now. But he does not believe the debt crisis will present enough anxiety for the Fed to derail an increase in the overnight bank lending rate. Siegel expects the rate hike to come in September.

ABC 7:30 Does First Time Buyer Investors

The ABC 7:30 programme featured a segment on First Time Investor Buyers, using DFA data from our surveys and posts.

You can get more details on the analysis we completed, on first time buyer investors, and potential risks to borrowers should interest rates rise down the track. We also discussed the ongoing rise in investment lending in the context of the record $1.47 trillion housing lending (RBA) and ABS data for May 2015.